Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rock Physics Rues Sel
Rock Physics Rues Sel
Brian Russell1
1 Hampson-Russell, A CGG GeoSoftware Company, Calgary, Alberta, brian.russell@cgg.com
ABSTRACT
In this report, I discuss several new approaches for linking rock physics to the
seismic reservoir characterization process. I will first discuss a deterministic rock
physics approach and show how we can project the results of rock physics modeling
onto a cross-plot of VP/VS ratio versus P-impedance that has been extracted from the
results of simultaneous pre-stack seismic inversion. From this cross-plot
interpretation we can then project the results directly onto the seismic volume itself.
Having identified the hydrocarbon zone using this deterministic approach I will then
discuss a statistical clustering and classification approach applied to the data cross-
plot which will allow us to develop a probabilistic interpretation of the extent of the
hydrocarbon anomaly. This approach will go beyond the normal approach using
bivariate Gaussian pdf functions and will introduce the concept of mixture-Gaussian
pdfs. As with the deterministic method, the pdf classification functions can then be
projected onto the seismic volume. I will illustrate the various approaches with
examples from a gas sand example in Alberta.
INTRODUCTION
Before getting into the details of the two methods, let me first describe the
reservoir geophysics workflow shown in Figure 1. As seen in this figure, the starting
point for the workflow is the data itself, where the well data is shown on the left of
the plot and the seismic data is on the right of the plot. Ideally, the well data includes
P-wave velocity, V P , S-wave velocity, V S , and density, ρ, so that adequate rock
physics and synthetic modeling can be done. However, if only P-wave velocity and
density is available, Gassmann modeling can be used to create the S-wave velocity
(the Gassmann equation will be discussed in the next section). Many rock physics
models are available, from unconsolidated gas sand modeling through complex
fractured carbonate modeling. In the next section, we will review an approach to
modeling unconsolidated gas sands that was initially proposed by Ødegaard and
Avseth (2003).
The next step, synthetic seismic modeling, first involves extracting a wavelet
from the seismic data and then tieing the zero-offset synthetic seismogram to the
stacked seismic data. After this, pre-stack synthetics can be created and compared to
the pre-stack seismic data. In this paper, we will not discuss synthetic tieing and
modeling, but will assume that these steps have been done.
The dataset used in this study is a shallow gas sand over the Colony formation
in southern Alberta. Figure 2 shows the well logs recorded in a well drilled into this
gas sand. Note that the gas sand is roughly ten metres thick between depths of 632 m
and 642 m. The P-wave sonic log and density logs shown in Figure 2 were recorded
in-situ, whereas the S-wave sonic log was created using Castagna’s equation
(Castagna et al., 1985) outside the gas sand zone, and Gassmann fluid replacement
modeling within the gas sand zone.
Figure 2: The well log suite for the producing well in the Colony gas sand.
VS = a + bVP (1)
If other wells in the area contain V P and V S curves, the coefficients in equation 1 can
be obtained through a local regression. However, since no observed V P and V S
curves are available in this area, the coefficients used here are the inverse of those
found in Castagna et al. (1985), which are a = -1172 m/s and b = 0.862.
where K sat is the saturated bulk modulus, K dry is the dry bulk modulus, K m is the
mineral bulk modulus and φ is the porosity of the reservoir rock, and K f is the bulk
modulus of the reservoir fluid.
To estimate the K dry value, we used the method proposed by Greenberg and Castagna
(1992), which involved the following iterative scheme:
1 S S S
= w + gas + oil , (3)
K fl K w K gas K oil
where in this case we set S w = S gas = 0.5 and found the values of the bulk moduli
using the equations giving in Batzle and Wang (19--).
We can then compute each new saturated bulk modulus value by re-arranging
equation 2 to give
x
K sat = K m , (3)
1+ x
K dry K fl
where x = + , and varying the values of φ (the porosities are
K m − K dry φ ( K m − K fl )
computed using the density log in Figure 1.
Once we have computed the dry rock bulk and shear moduli at different porosities,
we can use the Gassmann equation (equation 7) to model the saturated rock
properties. Gassmann’s theory predicts that the shear modulus is independent of
fluid content, or
µ sat = µ dry . (4)
Finally, we plug the new values of the bulk and shear moduli into the
equations for P and S-wave velocity in the saturated, porous reservoir, given by
K sat + 43 µ sat
VP _ sat = , and (5)
ρ sat
µ sat
VS _ sat = , (6)
ρ sat
where the density values can be taken from the measured density log. Note that the
V P /V S ratio log shown in Figure 1 can now be computed over both the wet and gas
zones, and the P-impedance log (not shown in Figure 1) can be computed by
multiplying the P-wave sonic by the density log.
Now we can analyze the zone between 600 and 700 m by cross-plotting the
V P /V S ratio log against the P-impedance log, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Cross-plotting the well log data shown in Figure 2, where the vertical axis represents V P /V S ratio and the
horizontal axis represents P-impedance, the product of density and P-wave velocity.
Figure 4: Here we have performed automatic clustering using statistical K-means and found 5 clusters.
1
5 − 4ν m 3n 2 (1 − φc ) 2 µ m2 3 µ 9 K + 8µ HM
µ HM = P , z = HM HM , P = effective
5(2 −ν m ) 2π (1 −ν m )
2 2
6 K HM + 2 µ HM
pressure, K m and µ m are the mineral bulk and shear moduli, n = the number of
contacts per grain, ν m is the mineral Poisson’s ratio and φ c is the high porosity end-
member.
where the subscripts m, w, g and o indicate matrix, water, gas and oil, S is the fraction
of saturation of each fluid component. Fluid substitution is then done using the
Gassmann equation, which was given earlier in equation 2. The saturated modulus is
equal to the dry modulus, as shown in equation 4. We then plug the values of the
bulk and shear moduli as a function of porosity and water saturation into the
equations for P and S-wave velocity given by equations 5 and 6. From equations 5, 6
and 9 we can then compute the V P /V S ratio and the P-impedance.
Figure 5: Cross-plot of V P /V S ratio versus acoustic impedance for the rock physics template
using the values given in the text (Ødegaard and Avseth, 2003). A range of porosities from 5 to
40% and water saturations from 0 to 100% are shown. The colour key is fractional porosity.
The template shown in Figure 5 allows us to go back and interpret the five
clusters shown in Figure 4, as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Interpretation of the clusters seen in Figure 4 using the rock physics template shown in Figure 5.
As seen in Figure 6, these clusters have been interpreted as shale, wet sand,
gas sand and cemented sand, which corresponds to petrophysical interpretations done
on the well logs.
The equations given by Ødegaard and Avseth (2003) also allow us to build
two-parameter templates on top of the cross-plot, as shown in Figure 7. The template
shown in this figure is given as a function of porosity and water saturation, where
porosity ranges from 4 to 16% and water saturation ranges from 0 to 100%. Note that
we have fit the gas sandstones, cemented sandstones and some to the wet sandstones
quite well. Other rock physics templates can be built for the shale cluster.
Figure 7: Superposition of set of curves created using the rock physics model of equations through on the
Colony well data crossplot of Figure 3.
In the next section, we will apply the concept of the rock physics template to
results extracted from the pre-stack inversion of the seismic dataset recorded around
the gas well shown in Figure 1.
Figure 8 shows a small subset of CMP gathers over a seismic line that is
intersects the well shown in Figure 2, as well as the resulting stack of these gathers.
The gathers show a noticeable AVO Class 3 anomaly outlined around the gas sand. A
class 3 anomaly is created by a sand shows a drop in both P-impedance and VP/VS
ratio, which is observed both in the log curves of Figure 2 and the interpreted cross-
plot of Figure 6.
The bottom part of Figure 8 shows the stack of these gathers, which forms
part of an amplitude “bright spot”. Note that the information contained in the pre-
stack amplitudes that suggested this was a Class 3 anomaly has been lost in the
stacking process. An amplitude “bright spot” on the seismic stack could thus indicate
either a gas sand or a large amplitude from another cause, such as coal beds, which
would be termed a “false” bright spot. To discriminate true gas sand bright-spots
from false bright-spots was the reason that AVO analysis was first developed
(Castagna et al., 1993) and many qualitative AVO techniques can be used to identify
the Class 3 gas sand shown in Figure 8. However, to compare the results shown on
the seismic gathers in Figure 8 with the crossplot shown in Figure 3, a more
quantitative method of AVO analysis is required, one that produces elastic results.
Figure 8: The top figure shows several seismic gathers around the well described in Figure 1, with a noticeable
AVO Class 3 anomaly outlined around the gas sand. The bottom figure shows the stack of these gathers, which
forms part of a gas sand “bright spot”.
The seismic gathers shown in Figure 8 were thus inverted using simultaneous
pre-stack model-based inversion (Hampson et al., 2005), in which the output is P-
impedance, S-impedance and density. Since the gathers shown in Figure 8 only
contain angles out to 30o, the density part of the inversion is not considered reliable,
so only P-impedance and S-impedance were used in the interpretation. Of course,
this allows us to create the V P /V S ratio versus P-impedance analysis shown in Figure
3, since the ratio of the P and S impedances gives us the V P /V S ratio.
The result of the seismic inversion on the seismic line shown in Figure 8 is
shown in Figure 9, where the colour represents V P /V S ratio and the wiggle-trace
represents P-impedance. As expected, the gas sand anomaly in Figure 9 shows up
with both low P-impedance and V P /V S ratio values.
Figure 9: Pre-stack seismic inversion of the gathers shown in Figure 8, where colour represents V P /V S ratio and
wiggle-trace represents P-impedance.
Figure 10: Three zones have been interactively picked on the dataset shown in Figure 9, where the red zone
represents the gas sand, the blue zone represents wet sands and shales and the green zone represents cemented
sands.
A cross-plot of the data clusters from these three zones shown in Figure 10,
with V P /V S ratio on the vertical axis and P-impedance on the horizontal axis, is shown
in Figure 11. Histograms of the three clusters are also shown on the cross-plot for
both P-impedance and V P /V S ratio. Note that this cross-plot can be interpreted in the
same way as Figure 6, with high V P /V S ratio, low P-impedance shales and wet sands,
low V P /V S ratio, low P-impedance gas sands, and medium V P /V S ratio, high P-
impedance shales and wet sands.
Figure 11: A cross-plot of the data clusters from these three zones shown in Figure 10, with V P /V S ratio on the
vertical axis and P-impedance on the horizontal axis. Note the interpretation of this cross-plot from the rock
physics template shown in Figure 5.
Figure 12: The parameters used in the rock physics template shown in Figure 13.
The resulting rock physics template, superimposed on the cross-plot of Figure 11, is
shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13: The rock physics template with values shown in Figure 12 applied to the cross-plot of Figure 11.
Again, the axes of this cross-plot is given by varying values of porosity and
water saturation, S W . Note that as water saturation increases, the V P /V S ratio also
increases, but as the porosity increases the P-impedance decreases. To project the
values of this cross-plot onto the seismic data, we will apply a colour scale to the
template itself. This colour scale in shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14: A rainbow-type colour palette that is applied to the rock physics template of Figure 13.
The colour scheme of Figure 14, which is the default rainbow scheme, is then
applied to the rock physics template from Figure 13, as shown in Figure 15. Note that
each grid cell, which is defined by porosity and water saturation increments, is thus
defined by a different colour. The low porosity, low water saturation sands tend to
fall into the “blue-purple” bands of colour.
Obviously, the next step is to transfer these colours to the seismic plot itself,
and this is shown in Figure 16.
Figure 15: The colour key of Figure 14 applied to the rock physics template shown in Figure 13.
As expected, the sands associated with the zone 2 picks (the red colour) in
Figure 10, are the ones that are coloured blue and purple from this new colour
scheme. However, we have no clear idea where the gas sand is, since this colour
scheme is quite “busy”.
Figure 16: The colours from the rock physics template shown in Figure 15, superimposed on the seismic section
from Figure 9.
I therefore went back to the colour scheme shown in Figure 12 and “cleared” it by
setting all the colours to white. I then filled in certain key porosity-saturation grid
cells with the colour red, as shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17: The colour palette shown in Figure 12 after first setting all the colours to white and then highlighting
key grid cells in red.
The result of applying the new colour palette shown in Figure 17 to the seismic cross-
section is shown in Figure 18. Note that the gas sand anomaly now is clearly defined.
Figure 18: Application of the colour palette shown in Figure 17 to the seismic cross-section. The gas sand
anomaly is now clearly identified.
In the next section, we will apply statistical methods to identify the probability
of finding the gas sand in the vicinity of the region shown in Figure 18. Specifically,
we will apply Bayesian classification using both bivariate Gaussian pdf and mixture-
Gaussian pdf methods.
BAYESIAN CLASSIFICATION
Now that we have analyzed the well log observations and seismic inversion
results using deterministic rock physics models, we will use statistical classification
methods to examine the extent of each lithology and fluid type of each of the clusters
found in the seismic dataset (Theodoridis and Koutroumbas, 2009, Doyen, 2007).
1 1 x−µ
2
f ( x | ck ) = exp − k
, (11)
σk 2π 2 σ k
1 Nk th class and σ 2 = 1
Nk
where µk = ∑ x ki represents the mean of the k k ∑ (xki − µk )2
N k i =1 N k i =1
represents the variance of the k class. We can then define a set of lines which mark
th
f ( x | ci ) = f ( x | c j ) (12)
However, implicit in equation 12 is the assumption that the two pdfs have
equal weights, or priors. In the Bayesian approach, we assign different weights to
each class, as shown here
f ( x | ci ) p( ci ) = f ( x | c j ) p( c j ) , (13)
In general, the priors are calculated by dividing the adding the total number of
points for all classes and computing the prior weight for each class by dividing the
number of points in that class by the total number of points. Note that this means that
the weights will add to one. Figure 19 shows the difference between the ML and
Bayesian decision boundaries for a dataset taken from North Africa, using two
classes. Note that the effect of including priors is to reduce the size of the pdf of the
cluster with the smaller prior, and thus shift the decision boundary in the direction of
this cluster.
Figure 19: Decision boundaries between the Vp/Vs ratio distributions of two different clusters for a North African
well example, where the ML decision boundary is shown on the left and the Bayesian decision boundary on the
right.
When we extend the clusters to two dimensions, we can write the bi-variate
Gaussian pdf as
1 1 T
f(x, y|ck ) = 1/ 2
exp − ( x − μk ) Σ k−1 ( x − μk ) , (14)
2π Σ k 2
x
where x = is a vector containing the x and y measurements at a particular sample,
y
μkx
μk = is a vector containing the means of the x and y values in the kth cluster,
μky
σ kxx σ kxy
and Σ k = is the covariance matrix which contains the variances of the x
σ kxy σ kyy
and y data values in the kth cluster, σ kxx and σ kyy , on the main diagonal, and the
1 Nk
covariance of the kth cluster, σ kxy = ∑ [(xi − µkx )(yi − µky )] , on the off-
N k − 1 i =1
diagonals. Equation 14 is the equation for an ellipse. Note that equation 14 can be
extended to a multi-variate distribution of any dimension, which results in an
ellipsoid in three dimensions and a hyper-ellipsoid in more than three dimensions.
Table 1 shows the bivariate statistics for the three cluster zones shown in Figure 11.
Table 1: The statistics for the three clusters shown in Figure 11, which correspond to the red cluster on the left, the
blue cluster in the middle and the green cluster on the right.
Figure 20: Bivariate elliptical Gaussian pdfs computed from the statistics in Table 1 and superimposed on the
clusters of Figure 11, where each contour represents a single standard deviation.
Figure 21: The distributions shown in Figure 21 superimposed on the seismic cross-section.
∫∫ f ( x, y | j )dxdy = 1.0 .
x, y
Table 2 shows the three Gaussian pdfs that went into a
mixture model for the first cluster in Figure 11. (We will not show the mixture
models for the other two clusters since by showing one result we get the point across.)
Note that the mixture weights are all very close to 1/3.
Table 2: The statistics for the three Gaussian pdfs in the mixture model for cluster 1.
The three pdfs shown in Table 2 are summed to produce the mixture-model
for the first cluster, which is shown in Figure 22, as are the mixture models of the
other two clusters. Again, note that the univariate distributions have been
superimposed on top of the histograms shown in the figure. On those distributions it
is clear that we now do not have a single Gaussian function, but instead have a
mixture of three. The choice of the number of pdfs to use in the mixture is controlled
by the user. Obviously, as the number of pdfs increases, the fit to the cluster gets
tighter. However, including too many pdfs in the mixture can lead to “over-fitting”,
in which noise or spurious points are fit too closely. Experience has shown that the
use of three pdfs in the mixture is a reasonable choice.
Figure 22: Mixture-Gaussian pdfs superimposed on the clusters of Figure 11, where each contour represents a
single standard deviation.
Figure 23: The distributions shown in Figure 22 superimposed on the seismic cross-section.
Note that the statistical extent of the gas sand in Figure 23 is less than its
extent in Figure 22, which is probably related to the extra complexity added by the
mixture Gaussian approach. Which analysis you prefer (i.e. that of Figure 23 or 24)
depends on which statistical fit you believe more.
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
Batzle, M., and Wang, Z., 1992, Seismic properties of fluids: Geophysics, 57, 1396-
1408.
Castagna, J. P., Batzle, M. L., and Eastwood, R. L., 1985, Relationships between
compressional-wave and shear-wave velocities in clastic silicate rocks, Geophysics,
50, 571-581.
Castagna, J. P., Batzle, M. L. and Kan, T. K., 1993, Rock physics - The link between
rock properties and AVO response, in Backus, M. M., Ed., Offset-dependent
reflectivity - theory and practice of AVO analysis: SEG, 135-171.
Gassmann, F., 1951, Uber die Elastizitat poroser Medien: Vierteljahrsschrift der
Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zurich, 96, 1-23.
Greenberg, M.L. and Castagna, J.P., 1992, Shear-wave estimation in porous rocks:
Theoretical formulation, preliminary verification and applications: Geophysical
Prospecting 40, 195-209.
Hampson, D.P., Russell, B.H., and Bankhead, B., 2005, Simultaneous inversion of
pre-stack seismic data: SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1633-1637.
Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., and Dvorkin, J., 1998, The Rock Physics Handbook – Tools
for seismic analysis in porous media: Cambridge University Press.
Mindlin, R.D., 1949, Compliance of elastic bodies in contact: J. Appl. Mech., 16,
259-268.
Ødegaard, E. and Avseth, P., 2003, Interpretation of Elastic Inversion Results Using
Rock Physics Templates: EAGE, Expanded Abstracts, E17.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank my colleagues at the CREWES Project and at CGG and Hampson-
Russell for their support and ideas, as well as the sponsors of the CREWES Project.